[Spambayes] Spambayes trashes PST file links in OuchLook
cncole at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 5 10:57:47 CEST 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hammond [mailto:mhammond at skippinet.com.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:58 AM
> To: cncole at earthlink.net; spambayes at python.org
> Subject: RE: [Spambayes] Spambayes trashes PST file links in OuchLook
> > Evidence strongly indicates that the only active superset list of
> > folders before opening is within Spambayes and for regeneration
> > purposes. Outlook and MAPI never did this on their own.
> I'm getting quite lost :) Outlook and MAPI must have had
> them open before
> they could even be selected in spambayes.
10-100 times before the Spambayes regen, Outlook did have the additional
PST files from my 2006 group open, but they had been closed through MANY
openings and closings of my Outlook's 2007 PST files since then.
> > > All pst manipulation happens inside MAPI. MAPI exposes all
> > > of the Outlook items as a big database. Spambayes never
> > > deals with pst files directly
> > > (indeed, spambayes doesn't even know they *are* in a PST file
> > > - they may
> > > well reside on an Exchange server).
> > Your assumptions simply are not entirely correct.
> They are facts, as the source code proves.
The source code must not operate as you believe, and this could be true
because of what the linked libraries may do at compile time... unless
the source is exclusively assembly code with no library routines ever
linked. Your citation of source code may not be inclusive of all actual
functionality unless you have audited the libraries, etc. I'm sure your
*intent* for the code is as you say but that may not actually be
definitive. Are any object libraries used? Is it *possible* that you
have not audited all possibilities for Spambayes regen action to trigger
something if not do it directly? I'm just trying to be logically
complete and thorough as you are, and do respect your knowledge of the
intended Spambayes functionality. I'm quite sure what I observe is true
and as described. Not sure there wasn't an unobservable glitch when
regen ran, but *if* the Spambayes and other processes were connected
logical processes, they did do as I described.
> <snip lots of stuff telling me I'm wrong about how spambayes works>
> > Unrelated to Outlook Rules. I did not cite these. They seem wholly
> > unchanged buy the other mess.
> Yes, I was just trying to help explain what you are seeing.
Thanks for your efforts and patience.
> > It us unrelated to Outlook and 100% correlated to Spambayes doing a
> > regeneration when some previously used folders are not
> already "open"
> > for this in Outlook. Outlook had/has no problem of this kind.
> I'm afraid I can't think of any more advice to offer.
Any libraries used?
I'm sure the fix is an Outlook tool, but there may be some prevention
needed in Spambayes. I bought an Outlook fixit tool that was supposed
to do magic, but did nothing.
More information about the SpamBayes